David Gregory played the May 1st tape to Senator Rubio in reference to his last visit and his answer with regard to being a potential vice-presidential choice of Governor Romney. In that May 1st interview, Mr. Rubio said that he had no desire to be the vice president, but his answer differed today. It wasn't a reversal, but you can tell he's in the running and is interested. He said that he wouldn't discuss anymore at this point, and while that would strike someone as a reversal of thinking, we this answer along with all his other answers of the issues as non-committal, even vague in some places, as if he's triangulating his answers so that they don't fall outside of Governor Romney's positions. Politico's Jonathan Martin used the term 'cautious.' The problem with this is that Mr. Romney himself is yet to fully explain his positions on key issues, such as immigration.
This week the Supreme Court will rule on two major cases, one being the constitutionality of the Arizona immigration law and the other on the Affordable Health Care act. On the former, Senator Rubio said that the Arizona law is constitutional, meaning that law enforcement has the right to demand proof of citizenship if the person is stopped and suspected of wrong-doing. While he thinks this is good for Arizona, he also said that he didn't think it was right for Florida. One of his reasons that he thought it was necessary in Arizona because it's a security matter and then laid the blame at the feet of the federal government for not enforcing the laws.
The Senator's answers are confusing at best. By saying it's right for Arizona, but not Florida, seems to indicate that he's for state solutions, but then he blames the federal government for failure on immigration. But what is the Obama Administration's failure? Mr. Rubio stated that the legal system of immigration is broken so how can we improve the situation for illegal immigrants? The problem with the Arizona law is that it opens up a situation in which law enforcement can demand citizenship proof from anyone - citizen or not - on the spot, and if you can not prove it, you could be detained. We think that most Americans would have a serious problem with someone asking to see 'your papers.' This plays into the general premise that Republican lawmakers are creating legislation that isn't big government, but resembles big brother.
And what of the Dream Act? Mr. Rubio is against it because he says it's 'too broad,' but like Romney, then has no answer as to what to do with the illegal immigrants that are already in this country. Neither politician has offered a solid alternative to the Dream Act to address the ultimate status of these people. Self-deportation, as Mr. Romney has suggested, is not an adequate solution. The core problem, right now, for Republicans is that immigration policy requires temperance and that's something that the core of the party won't bend on. It's a hardline stance that makes it so difficult for Senator Rubio, or Governor Romney who is trying to tact back to the middle on this, to answer honestly. Because of the build up of hardline rhetoric on the side of the Republicans, coming down off of that position for any conservative politician is not viable, hence there can be no compromise.
Mr. Rubio is, in fact, working on a comprehensive immigration bill, but it isn't ready yet. Keeping this in mind and considering his statement today when he said that if he doesn't have every answer to every question on the bill, it's loses credibility, and we respect that kind of thinking. However, in advance of said bill, there are two flags that we'd like to raise. One, the bill needs to be detailed. Unlike Congressman Paul Ryan's budget bill, it must contain specifics. It's why we don't agree with Mr. Ryan's plan - there aren't any specifics. For example, he said that his plan would close loopholes in the tax code, but he doesn't specify which ones. Secondly, and this speaks to the Republicans' tendency to fall into lock-step, the bill should have more than one name attached to it, hence opening it to wider debate. Paul Ryan constructed a budget bill and all Republicans are for it, all of it. Then there will be the Rubio Immigration Bill, and all Republicans will be for all of that. No bill is perfect through and through but by denying openmindedness to amendends, Republicans would have you think differently.
The second decision coming this week, possibly tomorrow, from the Supreme Court is on the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Act, specifically the individual mandate. First, just set aside what we know, and that is that Republicans are against the act and Democrats are for it. The debate was highly contentious to say the least, but the bill was passed... by Democrats, and they feel it should be the law. If the roles were reversed, Republicans understandably, justifiably would feel the same way. The problem here is that the Supreme Court is about to make law. Some would say 'no' that's not the case, but the perception is clearly there and in today's media world perception often supplants fact.
During today's panel, the possibility was raised that the Court could strike down the individual mandate, but uphold other parts of the law. They could do that, but that's called legislating. If the court strikes down the individual mandate, they are striking down the law, the entire law and that's how it should be. Then everyone will have to adjust to the consequences of the Supreme Court determining law. What we also find little odd is that everyone seems to feel that the law will indeed be struck down, which just reeks of cynicism, sending the message that everyone understands that the court is partisan and will employ that partisan advantage to a result. The writers of the Constitution did not design the Court to operate in that capacity, but here we are. Governor Richardson got it exactly right, the Supreme Court shouldn't strike down any of the law and shouldn't be making political decisions. And that should stand for both sides.
It's moments like these that remind us of a key phrase Judge Roberts used during his confirmation hearings and that was that he was going to 'call balls and strikes,' implying that there would be no political agenda at work when making decisions. As chief justice, the court's decisions reflect on him and so far, his court has a very high profile, a controversial one that the Supreme Court should absolutely not have. If it were acting in a manner that consistent with calling balls and strikes, then they should keep the same profile as an umpire. We see them on the field, we respect their decisions, but we don't know their names.
Round Table: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), Former Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM); POLITICO’s Senior Political
Reporter Jonathan Martin; and NBC News Chief Foreign Affairs
Correspondent Andrea Mitchell.
Postscript: We really haven't commented on Mr. Romney's potential vice-presidential running mate too much, though we do have our opinions on it. However, does it matter so much to speculate in this column and devote time to it? Not really. We do feel compelled to comment because after all, this column is based around what is said on Meet The Press and they do discuss the topic. With that in mind, Governor Richardson said that Romney needs a person who would make a splash. That person would be someone such as Condoleezza Rice, who Jonathan Martin said was all the buzz recently in Utah. But we don't see Mr. Romney going that way. The most reasonable, safest pick would be Governor Tim Pawlenty. He governed the moderate state of Minnesota and has a good solid conservative record. He was also an early, vocal Romney supporter, who many thought got out of the race too soon. Aside from the few brief comments, we're content not to speculate and hold for the examination when the choice is finally made.
No comments:
Post a Comment